Humanitext Reader

Justinian I · The Digest of Justinian §5.1.40.pr-5.1.40.1

Discretion of Judges and Malicious Breach of Duty

Passage 921 of 9271 · Latin

Summary

Discusses the relationship between a judge's discretionary power and legal obligation, and states that a judge violates the law if they with malice omit anything contrary to legal precepts during a trial.

[IDEM libro quarto quaestionum. ] §5.1.40.prNon quidquid iudicis potestati permittitur, id subicitur iuris necessitati.
[THE SAME, Questions, Book IV.] Not whatever is permitted to the power of a judge is subjected to the necessity of law.
§5.1.40.1Iudex si quid aduersus legis praeceptum in iudicando dolo malo praetermiserit, legem offendit.
If a judge, in judging, has with malice aforethought omitted anything contrary to the precept of the law, he violates the law.

Notes

  1. §5.1.40.prNon quidquid ... id — Correlation Non quidquid ... id expressing a partial negation: 'not everything which... is...'. The demonstrative pronoun id in the main clause refers back to the entire clause introduced by the relative quidquid.
  2. §5.1.40.1si quid — The indefinite pronoun aliquid loses its prefix ali- after the conjunction si, becoming quid. It means 'if anything' in the conditional clause.
  3. §5.1.40.1dolo malo — Ablative of manner. A standard technical term in Roman law meaning 'with malice aforethought' or 'intentionally'.

Cite this passage

Justinian I, The Digest of Justinian §5.1.40.pr-5.1.40.1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:5.1.40.pr-5.1.40.1

Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.

Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.